The hegemonic stability theory is a well-known theory in the study of international relations. The theory falls within the framework of International Society theory, but the theory also fits within the realist movement within the field of international relations. The theory does not have one founder, but through the accumulation of research the theory has become widely accepted within academic circles. We will first briefly describe within which movements in the study of international relations the theory fits, so that one can better understand the reasoning behind the theory. After this brief discussion, the core of hegemonic stability theory is explained.
International Society
International Society assumes that the world consists of a large number of countries that, because they are dependent on each other, together form a ‘society of countries’. However, countries are sovereign, the governments and heads of state of countries can decide for themselves how they respond to international issues. However, International Society would like to emphasize that all states are part of the same state system, and that various states share certain norms & values on issues that make them a community. Despite mutual differences, there is agreement on the rules of the game.
Systems thinking in international relations
International Society is a movement within the study of international relations that is typically based on systems thinking. Systems thinking assumes that people are never alone on their island. People always form groups, also called ‘systems’. Whether that is with your family, or within your school, or within the international system of states, we are all connected to each other and what happens in the rest of the world affects us. A system is based on this assumption that there are several players with a certain freedom of action who are nevertheless dependent on others and must respond to the behavior of others. The hegemonic stability theory fits well within this systems thinking.
Realism
The hegemonic stability theory also fits well within the realist movement in the study of international relations. Realism is the movement within international relations that states that every contact between countries is aimed at increasing power. Each country tries to gain as much power as possible compared to other countries. Shared norms & values play no role here, only whether a relationship produces power determines whether countries do business with each other or not. This emphasis on power and emotionless competition is characteristic of realism. Realism embraces hegemonic stability theory because it offers an explanation for the struggle that countries make to be the best in the world. From a realist perspective, the theory would explain why some countries have a lot of power and some countries have little power. However, the theory fits much better within the movement of the International Society.
Hegemonic Stability Theory
The hegemonic stability theory is based on the principle that every world order must have one or more hegemonies to safeguard order on earth. Within the current state system, this is America, which for the time being still has the most power and influence of all countries in the world. However, there are people who say that countries such as China , India and Japan will increasingly take over the role of hegemon in the world, because these countries are still growing in terms of economy and influence and the peak of growth in America has already been reached. However, this is a separate discussion that we will not go into further here.
Such a hegemony must meet a number of characteristics according to the theory:
- A good geopolitical position, especially countries that are quite isolated with good connections to the sea, have a good chance of achieving hegemony because they already have an advantage over other countries in terms of location.
- The will to lead, and the desire to take a hegemonic, leading and determining position within the world order
- A well-functioning, growing and dominant economy that has a far-reaching influence on the economies of other countries.
- A technological leadership role, leader in the field of innovative high-tech developments
- A country with a rich source of natural resources.
- Political power, that is to say through ‘soft power’, mild coercion, can force other countries to make certain choices
- Military strength, which means that the country has a well-functioning and large army that can be deployed if necessary for its own country or to help other countries
If all or most of these characteristics are met, and the country is prepared to commit itself as a hegemonic power within the state system for the long term, then it is likely that this country will have the necessary role within the world order in the coming years. will provide stability. The country does this, for example, by acting as a police officer between countries. In times of conflict between countries, it is often useful to have 1 country that has so much power that it can determine in whose favor the conflict will be settled. In this way, long wars are prevented.
This is essentially the hegemonic stability theory: 1 country, which is strong enough in various areas, occupies a leading hegemonic position and ensures stability and order within the international world . For many countries, not just the hegemonic country itself, this is a favorable situation because each country knows where it stands and can thus focus on its internal economy and internal affairs. If the hegemony falls, the card system will collapse and a new leader will have to be selected. This is often accompanied by power struggles and war.
Cycle theory
Within the thinking about the hegemonic stability theory there is also the cycle theory. The cycle theory assumes that hegemonic periods follow certain long cycles. The hegemony of a country will therefore expire over time and another country or countries will then arise to take over the hegemony. This is what we see, for example, with emerging economies such as China, India and Japan, where some scientists predict that one or more of these countries will eventually take over the world hegemony. According to researcher Dan Cox, such a hegemonic cycle would last an average of about 70 to 100 years. After this period, the demise of a hegemon takes place and a changing of the guard takes place in terms of hegemony within the world. Within this cycle there is a rise, apex and decline, with the hegemony going through these various phases . Wars often take place at the beginning or end of a cycle.
Unipolarity and multipolarity
Within the world order there can be a unipolar or a multipolar system. A unipolar system is when there is 1 country that has the most power in the world, the hegemon. A multipolar system is when there are 2 or more countries that balance each other’s power. An example is the two hegemons America and Russia, which balanced each other’s power during the Cold War. Because one superpower will never become greater than the other superpower, an equilibrium is created in which countries can flourish. There are sources who say that America and Russia did this on purpose at the time, and that they knew exactly what they were doing during the Cold War. A state of multipolarity can provide peace and order after a time of great tension, such as a major war.
America: a country in decline?
America is currently the leading hegemon within the international system of states. This is mainly because they were the great victors after the Second World War. Compared to other Allied countries, America had relatively few fallen soldiers and its economy only benefited from the war because economies in countries where the war physically took place were completely destroyed during the war. In this way, America was able to acquire a hegemonic position economically and militarily, for example by issuing loans to countries such as England, Germany and the Netherlands in exchange for political support and international policies that worked to America’s advantage.
In the beginning, America still had to deal with Russia, which also emerged victorious from the war. But this superpower was slowly dealt with during the Cold War. Some scientists say that America will now slowly lose its power as the end of the cycle comes into view. This corresponds with practice, just look at the credit crisis that has arisen in America and which will strongly weaken America for the time being. In contrast, we see other countries and associated economies that are becoming increasingly stronger. For example, China, India and Japan are well-known countries that have managed to make the transition to a flourishing liberal economy. According to theorists, raw materials and large numbers of workers will become increasingly important and technological knowledge will become less important.
We will see in the coming years whether researchers’ predictions will come true.
Soft power and hard power
Within international relations, a distinction is also made between ‘soft power’ and ‘hard power’. The degree of soft or hard power also largely determines which countries will ultimately be seen as hegemon and which countries as weaker states in the field of international relations.
Soft power
Soft power is power based on soft coercive measures. A country can get something done from another country without threatening military power. Through treaties and state visits, a country is massaged in a certain direction that is favorable to the country that exercises this soft power. The extent to which countries can influence other countries to make certain choices through soft power says something about the position they occupy in the international system of states. A country with a lot of soft power at the moment is America, which often plays a mediation role in international affairs such as the war between Israel and Palestine and can thus steer international conflicts in a certain direction.
Soft power can also be enforced because many countries have respect for a particular country. They then feel an agreement with the norms & values of a country and will therefore attach value to the judgment of that country.
Hard power
Hard power is power based on tougher measures, such as threatening military interventions or using force. This way of exercising power is much more old-fashioned and can be traced back, for example, to the First and Second World Wars, where there were mainly threats between countries with military interventions. But even then there was a mixture with soft power, because countries such as England, for example, tried to prevent a war with Germany prior to the Second World War by allowing Germany some things in the economic and political field. A better example is perhaps the Middle Ages, where affairs between empires and lords were mainly fought out through land battles. If a lord of the castle had problems with another lord, the sword was quickly drawn instead of negotiation.
Nowadays we increasingly see that countries try to resolve conflicts through soft power instead of through more disastrous and dangerous means (often also for the innocent citizens of a country) such as military intervention and bombings. Threatening is often enough to calm a conflict. Please note, sometimes this is not the case and countries have to take action to prevent worse.
read more
- The American political system
- Political science: science of the political
- Civil society: the power of civil society